[Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remainsopenforinvestigation
Barry Roth
barry_roth at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 9 16:12:28 CDT 2011
For some reason, Peter Hovencamp's post did not make it to my in-box, but the history he recounts is pretty much the way I remember it.
For that reason, discussions that go on as if all that never happened are hard to give my attention, even when they seem to be addressing issues of interest.
If I've missed some later chapters in the greater narrative, I'd be glad to be smartened up...
Barry Roth
On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:
> And the methods that I refuse to accept are?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: P.H. HOVENKAMP [mailto:phovenkamp at casema.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 3:56 PM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
> remainsopenforinvestigation
>
>
>
> This discussion is becoming interesting -- if only from a historical
> point of view.
>
> I remember that Don Colless engaged in a discussion of exactly the same
> topics in the late sixties - and was answered by Ghiselin, who, other
> than Brundin, did have an answer available. There's no mention of wodka,
> though.
> The topic was then picked up by Lundberg and others, among whom Peter
> Stevens, the oft-cited Watrous and Wheeler (QD, not WC) and Steve
> Farris. Yes, and Dick Jensen too contributed his bit. But most of this
> was played out in the 70ties and early 80ies, and as a result, cladists
> settled for the methods that John Grehan now refuses to accept. The
> papers can easily be retrieved through WOS and still make good reading.
> May I suggest that we all read these papers and come back to the
> discussion when we have digested them properly?
>
> Peter Hovenkamp
>
>
>
> Op 09/08/11, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> schreef:
>
> Don knows full well the answer if he has read the orangutan paper. The
> point of his asking the question is not the answer, but that he already
> disputes that answer (with respect to the question in general) as
> demonstrated by his reference to his inability to agree over the answer
> with Brundin. If Don would present what he sees as problematic I might
> be happy to address it.
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
> <Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:49 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
> remainsopenforinvestigation
>
> John: How do you "demonstrate" that a character state is "derived"?
>
> Donald H. Colless
> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
> GPO Box 1700
> Canberra 2601
> don.colless at csiro.au
> tuz li munz est miens envirun
> ________________________________________
> From: John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: 08 August 2011 20:27
> To: Colless, Donald (CES, Black Mountain)
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
> remainsopenforinvestigation
>
> Please explain what you see as the problem first.
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
> <Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 12:56 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
> remainsopenforinvestigation
>
> John: Please answer the question.
>
> Donald H. Colless
> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
> GPO Box 1700
> Canberra 2601
> don.colless at csiro.au
> tuz li munz est miens envirun
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: 07 August 2011 00:06
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains
> openforinvestigation
>
> Hey, if it could not be done with Brundin, then perhaps it cannot be
> done at all and systematics is just a delusion. It seems that for the
> most part, systematists (including molecular) aspire to something called
> cladistics. All we did was follow what we understand as necessary
> protocols to show that the preponderance of mrophogenetic evidence
> supports the orangutan relationship, and that so far this evidence is
> 'better' than the critics have come up with. Of course that is just our
> opinion, but our 'legal brief' is there for anyone to argue for or
> against. At least the theory has now transitioned from the level of
> being totally ignored to being attacked. Progress of sorts perhaps.
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
> <Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 2:27 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains
> openforinvestigation
>
> I do wish John would show us how to "demonstrate" that a character state
> is "derived" and its sharing therefore a synapomorphy. I once tried this
> on Lars Brundin, but all we could finally agree on was that the vodka
> botle was empty.
>
> Donald H. Colless
> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
> GPO Box 1700
> Canberra 2601
> don.colless at csiro.au
> tuz li munz est miens envirun
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: 05 August 2011 21:35
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains open
> forinvestigation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]> On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:54 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains open
> forinvestigation
>
> Interesting:
>> The last sentence in the abstract refers to "the fact that
>> identification of shared similarity does not translate into
>> demonstration of synapomorphy."
>> Ironically, that has actually been my biggest criticism of the
>> theory that orangutans and hominids form an exclusive clade---that the
>
>> identification of shared similarities between orangutans and hominids
>> does not translate into a demonstration of synapomorphies (but that
>> they are actually most likely symplesiomorphies).
>
> If one reads the paper one will see that similarity alone is does not
> translate into a demonstration of synapomorphy, whereas shared derived
> similarities (which is what we use) does. That is the difference. Quite
> simple really.
>
>
>> So I certainly agree with the subject line that the "Evolution of
>
>> human-ape relationships remains open", although a third theory (that
>> chimps and gorillas form an exclusive clade) is sadly not getting the
>> attention that it probably deserves.
>
> We do, if one reads the 2009 paper.
>
>> Meanwhile, those championing exclusive chimp-hominid or orangutan-
>> hominid clades are probably BOTH labelling symplesiomorphies as
>> synapomorphies. So I don't sympathesize with either side of that
>> debate, and that both are probably throwing rocks from glass houses.
>
> -------Ken Kinman
>
> One is entitled to take any view one prefers, but in this case the above
> opinion is noting more than an opinion, and one that has no empirical
> grounding.
>
> John Grehan
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Last sentence in the abstract reads:
> In brief, DOM fails both to test theories of relatedness and to
> take into account the fact that identification of shared similarity does
> not translate into demonstration of synapomorphy.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list